He does sound pretty difficult to take down, i mean he has the leadeship roll. Good toughness and damage. Regeneration and health draining attack + immunity to encirclement. Giving him hard-boiled as well sounds a bit overly generous just looking at his profile. I'm sure the devs will do their best; this guy will be popular op or not op.

First off: I'm loving it the heroes really seem to be focus on what they do. I'm liking the idea and am not too worried about stat up front since only testing on mass with players will tell there.

Of note:1. Sequence* should be CLEAVE: seeing as that is once again the very definition of the world.

2. 15% chance to kill for a whole round could be game breaking. It is interesting but I have to say I just don't like how much randomness you are introducing into a a strategy game. This especially punishes a faction like Wolves that has fewer units and are melee focused.

3. I actually feel speed 4 may be a might slow to synergize with a melee type but then seeing the rest of his abilities I actually think this is the only thing keeping him in check.

4. No encirclement penalty seems a great a idea but I would think this may be overpowered on any unit and perhaps should be brought down to ignores first 2-3 units for encirclement calculations. Harder to code but honestly more balanced.

I like everything shown here but much like others I can't agree with the chance for instakill. It's a highly risky proposition that will have some players disappointed in that they've never seen that 3% chance come up, and for others rage because a lucky hero nailed their flesh golem hero on the first turn of combat and ended the round.

Like another had said, instakill can be good, but perhaps only if it doesn't work against heroes. A 5% chance for the archer and 20% chance for Melmoth could work(Given that the archer has it as a passive and Melmoth has it as an activated ability that requires elixir) but only against normal units, whereas heroes are immune to being instakilled. Perhaps just some skeptical input on mine but I LOVE where this game is going and I'm just afraid for it is all.

I remember the game in Confrontation 3,5 edition when my girlfriend lost two strong heroes in first turn due to opponent lucky rolls (one of them was 6/6 (~3%) and other 6/5 (total of ~8%) as i remember) Next game she played year after that

1. Sequence* should be CLEAVE: seeing as that is once again the very definition of the world.

i don't remember Cleave from C3-4 while sequence was a common skill of every hero

ign: Draconnor, Cynwall player, 23 years in computer games, 14 years in battle games, 8 years in Confrontation Universe, 4 years of making own battle games.

Another thing that makes me wonder is...same AP cost as the lion hero but quite different cyan /ducats price...Wouldn't player feel bad about the price difference (since the AP cost is the same)?

why?there is no ap*ducat/cyan constant - and its goodyou pay for diversity rather thatn for stronger unit - and its goodif you set constant X modifier for counting the price - all exceptions could be counted as a stronger unit for pay to win players

and to be honest for us wit hundreds K ducats all prices will be funny ;P

ign: Draconnor, Cynwall player, 23 years in computer games, 14 years in battle games, 8 years in Confrontation Universe, 4 years of making own battle games.

Melmoth isn't a starter hero, thats why he's more expensive ducats/cyans. Though i hope his ducats/cyans cost doesn't reflect a tier system of how good heroes are. Liverne ought to be able to go toe to toe with Melmoth if they are the same ap cost. Though some pairings will have a side with an advantage over the other purely on the rock, paper, scizzors of tactics.